JUDGMENT Gita Mittal, J.-In this suit coming up for ex parte adjudication, M/s. Intel Corporation has complained of infringement of its trademark, alleged passing off by the defendant of its goods as those of the plaintiff and has sought the reliefs of injunction and rendition of accounts against the defendant. 2. The plaint has been signed and verified and the suit is instituted by Mr. Rahul Sethi who is duly authorized by a Power of Attorney exhibited as PW 1/1 before this Court. The plaintiffs a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA having its place of business at Robert Noyce Building, 2200 Mission College Boulevard. P.O. Box No. 58119, Santa Clara. CA 95052-8119. USA. 3. Such facts as are undisputed and established on record are noticed hereafter. The plaintiff is engaged and has acquired a worldwide reputation in its business relating to the internet, electronic computer and parts thereof including semi-conductor devices, memory chips, microprocessors, central processing units and other computer related products under the trade name and trademark containing the word INTEL. 4. INTEL is a coined word and the plaintiff claims a high degree of inherent distinctiveness in the same. Since its inception in 1968, the plaintiff has grown into a global corporation currently employing an estimated 85000 people in its subsidiary companies throughout the world and having a global turnover of US $ 34.2 billion. The plaintiff has asserted increase in its turnover by 13.5% from 2003. It has 294 worldwide offices covering all regions and is amongst the largest computer microprocessor manufacturer and distributor in the world. The word INTEL was coined by the plaintiff as its corporate name and trademark on its products since 1968. In 1971. the plaintiff introduced the worlds first microprocessor, a technology that has made a significant contribution and has revolutionized the world. The plaintiff has spent in excess of US $ 4.7 billion in 2004 alone on research and development programme. 5. The use of the name and mark INTEL which was first introduced in the United States has been extended to all other countries of the world. The plaintiffs products and services under the mark INTEL are sold in more than 100 countries including India and this name and mark has encompassed within itself. every facet of the computer industry including software and the internet. The plaintiffs products and services under the mark INTEL are sold in more than 100 countries including India and this name and mark has encompassed within itself. every facet of the computer industry including software and the internet. Innovations and improvement effected by the plaintiff have greatly improved the computing experience for personal computer user and has enabled provision of faster and more powerful information and data processor, the most recent of which is plaintiffs Intel-Centrino TM Mobile Technology. 6. The plaintiff has effected dramatic changes and improvement in the different softwares to be used with the computer and thereby INTEL has acquired global acceptance, respect and fame. The plaintiff has expanded the use of its, INTEL mark on products beyond computers in view of the fame and quality attached thereto. All these products can be seen and purchased at Intel corporations online stores i.e. The Intel Store and SHOP INTEL. According to the plaintiff, this business is more than merely a promotional sale and generates substantial revenue for the plaintiff. Amongst other products the products of Intel Corporation includes T-shirts, polo shirts, denim shirts, desk accessories, attaches and novelty items. Furthermore. M/s. Intel also offers these items for sale through UNIQUELY INTEL catalogues. The plaintiff is maintaining its websites which includes www. intelstore.com and www.shop-intel.com. To effect sale of these products the plaintiff has alleged that it makes several hundred thousand of US dollars from its sales of non-computer products. 7. Since 1969, the plaintiff has adopted a distinctive style for representing its trademark INTEL which is popularly known as the Intel dropped e logo. This logo has also been given wide publicity and is exclusively identified with the plaintiffs products. 8. Since 1991, the plaintiff has adopted the mark INTEL INSIDE and launched a revolutionary programme by the same name of logo licensing and cooperative advertising programme. Under this programme, its well known international computer manufacturers such as IBM. Dell. Hewlett-Packard, Compaq. Wipro, Zenith, HCL, Vintron, Acer and PCs in India sell personal computers designed with INTEL microprocessors. These computer companies are licensed by the plaintiff to use Intels INTEL INSIDE logo on their computer and in their advertising and promotional materials. Through this programme, the INTEL INSIDE logo appears on the front label of millions of computers around the world and the INTEL INSIDE logo mark is seen extensively in computer manufacturer advertisements. These computer companies are licensed by the plaintiff to use Intels INTEL INSIDE logo on their computer and in their advertising and promotional materials. Through this programme, the INTEL INSIDE logo appears on the front label of millions of computers around the world and the INTEL INSIDE logo mark is seen extensively in computer manufacturer advertisements. It has been stated that this programme is one of the worlds largest co-operative ingredient brand marketing programmes. According to an article in Advertising Age of 15th November. 1999, this programme is regarded as one of the most magniticent campaigns of the century. The plaintiff has stated that it has spent billions of dollars in advertising collectively with its licensees who carry the INTEL INSIDE logo. Only such computer manufactures who are licensed by the plaintiff have any authority to use the INTEL INSIDE loso. 9. Through the licensing programme licensees comprising computer manufacturers are able to affix the recognizable INTEL INSI DE logo to their computer systems which include desktop PCs, laptop/notebook computers, servers and workstations. Additionally, certain licensed manufacturers, reseller and retailers are permitted to use the logo to advertise compliant system on point of purchase material prim advertisements, television and the web. 9. The plaintiff has also established on record that it has an estimated 2000 trademark registration worldwide consisting of or incorporating the word INTEL in respect in computer, computing devices Microprocessors and various parts thereof as well as in respect of software to be used with computer. 10. In India the plaintiff has obtained registration of INTEL trademark in respect of different goods in Classes 9 and 18. These registration have been exhibited before this Court as Exhibit PW 1/2 and are valid and subsisting on the register of the Registrar of Trademarks. Therefore the plaintiff has an exclusive right to use the trademark. 11. Apart from the rights accruing to the plaintiff on account of registration of the trademark the plaintiff has claimed proprietorship and rights in common law in the trademark INTEL on account of its widespread use around the world and in India by itself or in conjunction with other words or numerals such as inter alia INTEL, Intel Centrino logo, Intel 386, Intel 486. Intel Inside, Intel Net Burst, Intel Net Merge, Intel Net Structure, Intel Speed Step, Intel Strata Flash, Intel Xeon, Intel X Scale. 12. Intel Inside, Intel Net Burst, Intel Net Merge, Intel Net Structure, Intel Speed Step, Intel Strata Flash, Intel Xeon, Intel X Scale. 12. By vi11ue of prior adoption, prior use and registration on account of extensive publicity and promotion, the trademark INTEL has achieved significant goodwill and reputation among the members of the trade and public who associate the mark/name INTEL with the plaintiff alone. This mark serves as the exclusive designation of origin for the plaintiffs products and services and as a symbol of the goodwill and excellent quality of plaintiffs products and services. The plaintiff has pointed out that on account of its superior quality and continuous research and development efforts, the industry and public have shown enduring public trust and demand for its INTEL branded products. Some of wide scale advertisements undertaken by the plaintiff have been proved on record as Exhibit PW 1/3. 13. The plaintiff has asserted its annual revenue and approximate annual global advertising expenditure, including reimbursements for co-operative advertising for the period 1993-2004 as follows: YearWorldwide (in at least $ US Million) Advertising ExpenditureRevenue (in at least $ US Million) 1993 $ 325.00$8,780.00 1994 $ 450.00$11,500.00 1995 $ 650.00$16,200.00 1996 $970.00$20,800.00 1997 $1,200.00$25,000.00 1998 $1,300.00$26,200.00 1999 $1,700.00$29,300.00 2000 $2,000.00$33,700.00 2001 $1,600.00$26,500.00 2002 $1,700.00$26,700.00 2003 $1,800.00$30,141.00 2004$34,209.00 There is no dispute to these facts from the side of the defendant. 14. So far as the proof with regard to the reputation achieved by the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff has stated that it has been honoured by national and international organizations. The plaintiff was recognized as a Blue Ribbon company by the international business magazine FORTUNE and as one of the 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers by Working Mother Magazine. It was No.3 on the Business Ethics Magazine list of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens and received third perfect score on the Human Rights Campaigns Corporate Equality Index. I t was also named the Technology Market Sector Leader of the well known Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the fourth year in a row. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rated the plaintiff as No. 1 on its list of Best Workplace for Commuters from the FORTUNE 500 Companies. 15. So far as Indian operations are concerned, the plaintiff has commenced its operations in India in 1988 with the opening of its branch office in Bangalore. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rated the plaintiff as No. 1 on its list of Best Workplace for Commuters from the FORTUNE 500 Companies. 15. So far as Indian operations are concerned, the plaintiff has commenced its operations in India in 1988 with the opening of its branch office in Bangalore. The plaintiff has been exporting products to India from as back as in the year 1972. The plaintiffs Intel branded products are marketed and promoted by its branch office and wholly owned subsidiary in India trading as Intel Asia Electronics Inc. and Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. respectively. The plaintiffs branches have been set up in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata. Bangalore and Chennai and it has a network of dealers and distributors throughout India. 16. The plaintiff has spent millions of rupees to popularize the Intel branded products in India and with the advent of information technology revolution in India and widespread use of computing in every field, the mark INTEL has become a household name in India. 17. The plaintiff points out that due to the large amount of computer software being developed and exported by Indian companies, Intel has become even more popular and well known as a brand name. The plaintiff submits that it appoints] 500 Indian nationals in its various companies in U.S.A. and Europe and many more second generation Indians. It has also developed the Intel Museum also accessible through its website, which shows how microprocessors are manufactured how they operate and the effect of technology on them. This museum has its own outlay selling technology related souvenirs, gifts and clothing and other accessories. Thereby the reputation and goodwill of the INTEL trademark not only as a technology company but as a merchandiser of quality goods has become well established. 18. So as to develop and promote computer literacy, the plaintiff has set up Intel Technology Centre and Laboratory in Bangalore, Mumbai and Delhi and even a national centre for software technology which is a unit of Indias Department of Electronics. Since May, 1996, the plaintiff is running several Intel Cyber schools which are state of art multimedia labs which provide children, teachers, parents with easy hands on access to latest computer literacy programmes. It is also publishing and circulating computer technology updates and trends in journal such as Smart Technology, Intel Tech Buzz, etc. 19. Since May, 1996, the plaintiff is running several Intel Cyber schools which are state of art multimedia labs which provide children, teachers, parents with easy hands on access to latest computer literacy programmes. It is also publishing and circulating computer technology updates and trends in journal such as Smart Technology, Intel Tech Buzz, etc. 19. Plaintiff has also pointed Ebay and other companies to help, educate consumers about e-waste concerns and to help them find responsible end of life solutions. 20. The plaintiff, through its hundred Intel (R) computer club houses and Intel-learning programme, has helped foster technology skill and self-confidence in young people in underserved communities worldwide. 21. For all these reasons, the plaintiff submits that it is the proprietor of the trademark and name INTEL which is associated with the plaintiff and none else. By virtue of the registration, the plaintiff has a statutory right to prevent any unauthorized and illegal use of its name and mark by third parties. 22. The plaintiff has complained that the defendant is the sole proprietor of a commercial enterprise which is primarily engaged in the business of providing internet facilities as well as photocopying and typewriting facilities under the name and style of M/s. Intel Info Services. The use of the name and mark INTEL by the defendant as a part of its trade name is without the consent, authorization or licence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff made several attempts around 2003 to resolve the dispute amicably but the defendant has refused to recognize the plaintiffs intellectual property rights in this famous name and trademark INTEL and continues to violate them with utmost disdain. 23. It was in the month of February, 2003 that the plaintiff became aware of the defendant-firm in question trading under the afore-noticed name. After making inquiries, the plaintiff addressed a warning letter dated 25th February, 2003 to the defendant notifying the defendant of the plaintiffs right in the trade name and mark INTEL and calling upon it to settle the matter amicably. This letter was issued by the plaintiff through its Counsel Mr. John Mathew, the office copy of the same has been proved on record as Exhibit PW 1/4. The defendant did not respond to the letter. On the other hand, the defendant kept delaying the issue on some of the other pretext. 24. This letter was issued by the plaintiff through its Counsel Mr. John Mathew, the office copy of the same has been proved on record as Exhibit PW 1/4. The defendant did not respond to the letter. On the other hand, the defendant kept delaying the issue on some of the other pretext. 24. The plaintiff followed up with several telephone ca1ls to settle the matter amicably but received no response. A reminder was issued to the defendant dated 9th June, 2003 which has been placed on record as Exhibit PW 1/5 again through Counsel. 25. Thereafter, series of meetings were held from time-to-time to persuade the defendant to settle the matter amicably which have a1l fallen on deaf ears. The defendant has persisted with his illegal action. Yet another reminder was issued to the defendant dated 19th September, 2003 calling upon the defendant to change his trade name which has been marked as Exhibit PW 1/6 before this Court. 26. All these efforts of the plaintiff have been ignored in complete disdain by the defendant who has not even bothered to acknowledge, let alone reply or comply with the plaintiffs demands. The plaintiff has stated that the defendant continues to violate the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff with impunity, as all reasonable offers of the plaintiff to assist the defendant in the name change process and even allow a reasonable transition period have resulted in no positive response. 27. On 12th of August, 2004, the defendant contacted the plaintiffs local Counsel Mr. John Mathew over the telephone and expressed reluctance to settle the matter. The plaintiff has pointed out that the defendant has adopted an identical name INTEL without permission and consent of the plaintiff. The defendant is using computers in relation to its business of operating an internet cafe and, therefore, the only explanation in adoption of the mark and name of the plaintiff is to take undue advantage of the reputation which has been built up in respect of the name and mark INTEL in order to create confusion and deception in the minds of consumer-public and in the trade. It is stated that the defendant is using the plaintiffs well known trademark and trade name INTEL in its entirety as part of its trade name. It is stated that the defendant is using the plaintiffs well known trademark and trade name INTEL in its entirety as part of its trade name. The use of such mark by the defendant in relation to providing internet facilities which necessitate extensive use of computer thereby would cause confusion in the minds of user-public of the association of the business of the defendant with that of the plaintiff. The defendant is also providing printing facilities which involve an inseparable association with computers and typewriting facilities which involve use of computers on an extensive scale. The advanced photocopying machines being used by the defendant comprises embedded microprocessors such as those manufactured by the plaintiff and, consequently, there is an obvious close connection between the activities of the parties. 28. From the above, it is apparent that the defendant runs a technology driven enterprise involving extensive use of modern machines including computers and microprocessors. The defendant being in such an enterprise cannot deny knowledge of the plaintiffs well known business activities as well as awareness of the market, reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the plaintiff nationally and internationally. 29. INTEL is a coined word and it is apparent that the defendant has selected and used the same with an intent of trading and benefiting from the reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiff and its world famous INTEL mark. 30. There is no dispute that services like the use of computers, printers, typewriters, photocopying facilities provided by the defendant are collectively employed by offices and other businesses as part and parcel of their routine functioning which clearly establishes the commonality between the goods and services provided by the plaintiff and the defendant. 31. It needs no elaboration that famous and well known trademarks especially those that embody a reputation of pre-eminent excellence and quality as the plaintiffs INTEL trademark are required to be given a broad protection. This is more so when the defendant attempts to use the mark in relation to goods and services which are covered or rendered under the well known trademark or overlap or are in close proximity to it. 32. This is more so when the defendant attempts to use the mark in relation to goods and services which are covered or rendered under the well known trademark or overlap or are in close proximity to it. 32. From the above, there can be no manner of doubt that the mark INTEL is inherently distinctive of the products and business of the plaintiff, that the same has been used continuously and extensively for several decades; that the plaintiff has extensively promoted and advertised the INTEL mark in India as well as overseas and the relevant and substantial section of the public associates and knows that the mark belongs to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has tremendous sales running into millions of dollars for goods sold under the INTEL mark in India and overseas; that the plaintiffs mark has been extensively advertised by print, audio and visual mediums in India as well as abroad; that the plaintiff has several registrations for the INTEL mark in numerous countries around the world as well as in India; that the plaintiffs website is also asserted to be receiving millions of visitors per week from allover the world evidencing its popularity and its website is accessible to trading consumers in India and is an instant source of exposure and knowledge to the public of the plaintiffs products and business. 33. It has also been brought in evidence that the plaintiff has vigilantly protected its trademark and name from misuse by third party and initiated legal action against attempts of third parties from infringing the trademark of the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff has addressed legal notices to third parties requiring them to cease and resist from using any mark closely resembling or deceptively similar or identical to the mark of the plaintiff. Several orders of injunction passed by Court against a number of parties using the mark INTEL not only in relation to the information technology industry but to diverse sector and industry as closing home appliances, heavy machinery, etc. have been placed before this Court. There is, therefore, no manner of doubt that the plaintiff has established reputation and goodwill in the mark INTEL and is entitled to maintain exclusive proprietary rights in the same. 34. have been placed before this Court. There is, therefore, no manner of doubt that the plaintiff has established reputation and goodwill in the mark INTEL and is entitled to maintain exclusive proprietary rights in the same. 34. There is, therefore, force in the submission on the behalf of plaintiff that the use of impugned trademark and name INTEL by the defendant amounts to infringement of plaintiffs rights in the registered trademark INTEL which has been registered under Nos. 678000, 556646, 736517 in Class 9 and 768180 in Class 18 with the Registrar of Trademarks. Undoubtedly, such use by the defendant shall not have the effect of diluting the distinctive character of the plaintiffs trademark and would cause the same to be debased and eroded. 35. Various Court orders placed before this Court show that this Court has issued several orders of injunction prohibiting third parties from using marks similar to that of the plaintiffs trademark. For instance, one defendant has been restrained from using Wintel as a trademark for generator, telecommunication and IT related service in SC (OS) No. 249/2004, Naresh Kohli v. Pooja International. Similarly, interim injunction has been granted from using INTEL as a part of the domain name in C.S. (OS) No. 545/2004 entitled J. Ivaan Salvaraj v. Nav Intel Food Machine Pvt. Ltd., amongst others. 36. The defendants were duly served with a Court process and failed to appear despite due service. Accordingly, by an order dated 18th May, 2005. .this Court directed ex parte proceedings against the defendant. Further, an interim injunction prohibiting the defendant, its partners, officers, agents, service representatives from conducting any business under the trade name INTEL or any other trade name, trademark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark INTEL was also issued. This also did not prompt the defendant to take any steps in the matter. This suit is therefore undefended. 37. In these circumstances the plaintiff was permitted to file ex parte evidence by affidavit and thereafter the matter has proceeded to judgment. 38. By virtue of the registration of the trademark noticed above, under Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, exclusive rights have been conferred in respect thereof in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is clearly guilty of infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. 38. By virtue of the registration of the trademark noticed above, under Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, exclusive rights have been conferred in respect thereof in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is clearly guilty of infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. In this behalf, reference can usefully be made to the pronouncement of the Apex Court in AIR 197 I SC 898 (at page 903) entitled National Bell Company v. Metal Good., Manufacturing Co., wherein the Court held that on registration of a trademark, under Section 28 of the enactment, the registered proprietor gets the exclusive right to use such trademark in relation to the goods in respect of which the mark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of any infringement of such trademark. 39. In AIR 1986 SC 137 (para 36 at page 155), American Home Products Ltd. v. Mac Laboratories, the Court held that invasion of the right of the person who has a registered trademark in his favour by any other person using a mark which is the same or deceptively similar to his trademark, is liable to be protected by an action of infringement in which an order of injunction would require to be obtained. 40. This Court in AIR 1986 Delhi 345, Tata Oil Mill... v. Wipro Ltd., also recognized the proprietary rights and the right of exclusivity in the use of the registered trademark by the person in whose favour the trademark was registered under Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. 41. In AIR 1965 SC 980 , Durga Dutt Sharma v. N.P. Laboratories, it was held that once the Court reaches the conclusion that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiffs rights are violated. 42. The illegal acts of the defendant as are complained of by the plaintiff result in serious consequences. Simple prohibitory injunctions do not always afford adequate remedy for such actions. 43. 42. The illegal acts of the defendant as are complained of by the plaintiff result in serious consequences. Simple prohibitory injunctions do not always afford adequate remedy for such actions. 43. In the instant case, the plaintiff has made its prayers for a permanent injunction against the defendant from using INTEL as a trade name or any other name or mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff s registered trade mark INTEL in any manner or doing any act which would cause confusion or deception amounting to infringement of the plaintiff s registered mark INTEL or doing anything which would be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off defendants business as that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for an order for delivering of all printed matter stated by the defendant bearing the mark/name INTEL for the purposes of destruction. I find that a prayer has also been made in the plaint for rendition of accounts of profits made by the defendant or the damages to the plaintiff on account of use of the trade name INTEL but there is no evidence of the profits made by the defendant. The plaintiff has also not led any evidence on loss suffered by him and, consequently, such a prayer of rendition of accounts by the defendant cannot be granted. The same is also not possible for the reason that the defendant has opted not to appear and has avoided consequences of such an order. 44. Therefore, I find that the plaintiff has adequately established only the infringement of its trademark by the defendant and the act of passing off its business as that having association with that of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has failed to lead evidence in support of its plea for rendition of accounts or damages. In the light of the principles of law noticed hereinabove, the defendant is liable to be injuncted from such illegal action in which he is persisting despite repeated notice by the plaintiff. There can be no manner of doubt that the defendant is fully aware of the consequences of his illegal action inasmuch as the defendant is operating a technology driven enterprise which involves extensive use of modern machines including computers. Being in related fields the defendant would have notice of the plaintiffs business activities. He has failed to place any explanation for the use of the word Intel. Being in related fields the defendant would have notice of the plaintiffs business activities. He has failed to place any explanation for the use of the word Intel. The plaintiff has stated that the same is a coined word which is also undisputed on record. It is evident there from that the defendant has adopted this trade name being aware of the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the plaintiff. The defendant certainly has no right to use this trademark or continue to retain in its possession the offending material. The plaintiff has failed to place any material before this Court based whereon it could be held entitled to compensatory damages. Such damages necessarily would require some material relating to the duration for which the defendant is carrying on its illegal activities, the extent of the sales of the defendant of the offending goods, an estimate of the loss of business, revenue and profits of the plaintiff, etc. In this view of the matter, there is nothing on record which could justify award of damages. 45. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in terms of prayers made in paras 41 (i) to (iii). Consequently, I hereby pass a decree restraining the defendant, its partners, officers, servants, agents and representatives, etc. from conducting any business using INTEL as a trade name or any other name/mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered mark INTEL under Nos. 67800,556646, 736517 all is Class 9 and 768180 in Class 18 and/or in any manner whatsoever, doing any other things using the mark INTEL as may be likely to cause, confusion or deception amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs registered INTEL mark. I also pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction prohibiting the defendant, its partners, officers, servants, agents and representatives, etc. from conducting any business using INTEL as a trade name or any other name/mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered mark INTEL under Nos. 678000, 556646,736517 and 768180 in Classes 9, 9, 9 and 18 respectively and/or in any manner whatsoever, doing any other things using the mark INTEL as may likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off his business as that of the plaintiff. 678000, 556646,736517 and 768180 in Classes 9, 9, 9 and 18 respectively and/or in any manner whatsoever, doing any other things using the mark INTEL as may likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off his business as that of the plaintiff. I also hereby direct the defendant to deliver all printed matter bearing the mark/name INTEL in its power and possession, including name boards, stationery, invoices, business cards, goods, dyes, blocks, cartons, labels, packaging boxes, plastic covers, etc. to the plaintiff through its authorised representative who shall cause the same to be destroyed. The other prayers in the suit are hereby dismissed. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of present proceedings which are quantified as Rs. 50,000/-. Suit decreed.